Posts

2019 FBAR Conversion Rates | FBAR Tax Lawyer & Attorney

The 2019 FBAR conversion rates are highly important in US international tax compliance. The 2019 FBAR and 2019 Form 8938 instructions both require that 2019 FBAR conversion rates be used to report the required highest balances of foreign financial assets on these forms (in the case of Form 8938, the 2019 FBAR conversion rates is the default choice, not an exclusive one). In other words, the 2019 FBAR conversion rates are used to translate foreign-currency highest balances into US dollars for the purposes of FBAR and Form 8938 compliance.

The U.S. Department of Treasury  already published the 2019 FBAR conversion rates online (they are called “Treasury’s Financial Management Service rates” or the “FMS rates”).

Since the 2019 FBAR conversion rates are highly important to US taxpayers, international tax lawyers and international tax accountants, Sherayzen Law Office provides the table below listing the official 2019 FBAR conversion rates (note that the readers still need to refer to the official website for any updates).

Country – Currency Foreign Currency to $1.00
AFGHANISTAN – AFGHANI77.6250
ALBANIA – LEK108.2100
ALGERIA – DINAR118.7800
ANGOLA – KWANZA475.0000
ANTIGUA – BARBUDA – E. CARIBBEAN DOLLAR2.7000
ARGENTINA – PESO59.8700
ARMENIA – DRAM475.0000
AUSTRALIA – DOLLAR1.4250
AUSTRIA – EURO0.8900
AZERBAIJAN – NEW MANAT1.7000
BAHAMAS – DOLLAR1.0000
BAHRAIN – DINAR0.3770
BANGLADESH – TAKA85.0000
BARBADOS – DOLLAR2.0200
BELARUS – NEW RUBLE2.1040
BELGIUM – EURO0.8900
BELIZE – DOLLAR2.0000
BENIN – CFA FRANC582.0000
BERMUDA – DOLLAR1.0000
BOLIVIA – BOLIVIANO6.8300
BOSNIA – MARKA1.7410
BOTSWANA – PULA10.5490
BRAZIL – REAL4.0200
BRUNEI – DOLLAR1.3450
BULGARIA – LEV1.7410
BURKINA FASO – CFA FRANC582.0000
BURMA-KYAT1,475.0000
BURUNDI – FRANC1,850.0000
CAMBODIA (KHMER) – RIEL4,051.0000
CAMEROON – CFA FRANC578.1200
CANADA – DOLLAR1.3000
CAPE VERDE – ESCUDO99.2910
CAYMAN ISLANDS – DOLLAR0.8200
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC – CFA FRANC578.1200
CHAD – CFA FRANC578.1200
CHILE – PESO751.4800
CHINA – RENMINBI6.9610
COLOMBIA – PESO3,278.7500
COMOROS – FRANC439.0600
CONGO – CFA FRANC578.1200
COSTA RICA – COLON569.6500
COTE D’IVOIRE – CFA FRANC582.0000
CROATIA – KUNA6.4900
CUBA – Chavito1.0000
CYPRUS – EURO0.8900
CZECH REPUBLIC – KORUNA22.1650
DEM. REP. OF CONGO – FRANC1,650.0000
DENMARK – KRONE6.6520
DJIBOUTI – FRANC177.0000
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – PESO52.6600
ECUADOR – DOLARES1.0000
EGYPT – POUND16.0000
EL SALVADOR – DOLARES1.0000
EQUATORIAL GUINEA – CFA FRANC578.1200
ERITREA – NAKFA15.0000
ESTONIA – EURO0.8900
ETHIOPIA – BIRR31.8000
EURO ZONE – EURO0.8900
FIJI – DOLLAR2.1420
FINLAND – EURO0.8900
FRANCE – EURO0.8900
GABON – CFA FRANC578.1200
GAMBIA – DALASI51.0000
GEORGIA – LARI2.8700
GERMANY – EURO0.8900
GHANA – CEDI5.6600
GREECE – EURO0.8900
GRENADA – EAST CARIBBEAN DOLLAR2.7000
GUATEMALA – QUENTZAL7.6900
GUINEA BISSAU – CFA FRANC582.0000
GUINEA – FRANC9,380.0000
GUYANA – DOLLAR215.0000
HAITI – GOURDE87.6550
HONDURAS – LEMPIRA25.0000
HONG KONG – DOLLAR7.7860
HUNGARY – FORINT294.2900
ICELAND – KRONA120.7600
INDIA – RUPEE71.0000
INDONESIA – RUPIAH13,895.0000
IRAN – RIAL42,000.0000
IRAQ – DINAR1,138.0000
IRELAND – EURO0.8900
ISRAEL – SHEKEL3.4540
ITALY – EURO0.8900
JAMAICA – DOLLAR136.0000
JAPAN – YEN108.5300
JERUSALEM – SHEKEL3.4540
JORDAN – DINAR0.7080
KAZAKHSTAN – TENGE381.1800
KENYA – SHILLING101.2500
KOREA – WON1,153.7000
KOSOVO – EURO0.8900
KUWAIT – DINAR0.3030
KYRGYZSTAN – SOM69.6000
LAOS – KIP8,865.0000
LATVIA – EURO0.8900
LEBANON – POUND1500.0000
LESOTHO – MALOTI14.0560
LIBERIA – DOLLAR186.9900
LIBYA – DINAR1.3960
LITHUANIA – EURO0.8900
LUXEMBOURG – EURO0.8900
MADAGASCAR – ARIARY3,627.2000
MALAWI – KWACHA760.0000
MALAYSIA – RINGGIT4.0890
MALDIVES – RUFIYAA15.4200
MALI – CFA FRANC582.0000
MALTA – EURO0.8900
MARSHALL ISLANDS – DOLLAR1.0000
MARTINIQUE – EURO0.8900
MAURITANIA – OUGUIYA37.0000
MAURITIUS – RUPEE36.2000
MEXICO – PESO18.8920
MICRONESIA – DOLLAR1.0000
MOLDOVA – LEU17.1000
MONGOLIA – TUGRIK2,733.5200
MONTENEGRO – EURO0.8900
MOROCCO – DIRHAM9.5970
MOZAMBIQUE – METICAL 60.8500
NAMIBIA – DOLLAR14.0560
NEPAL – RUPEE113.7500
NETHERLANDS – EURO0.8900
NETHERLANDS ANTILLES – GUILDER1.7800
NEW ZEALAND – DOLLAR1.4830
NICARAGUA – CORDOBA33.8000
NIGER – CFA FRANC582.0000
NIGERIA – NAIRA361.0000
NORWAY – KRONE8.7820
OMAN – RIAL0.3850
PAKISTAN – RUPEE154.8500
PANAMA – BALBOA1.0000
PANAMA – DOLARES1.0000
PAPUA NEW GUINEA – KINA3.3110
PARAGUAY – GUARANI6,442.3301
PERU – SOL3.3140
PHILIPPINES – PESO50.6400
POLAND – ZLOTY3.7890
PORTUGAL – EURO0.8900
QATAR – RIYAL3.6400
REP. OF N MACEDONIA – DINAR54.7600
REPUBLIC OF PALAU – DOLLAR1.0000
ROMANIA – NEW LEU4.2560
RUSSIA – RUBLE62.2730
RWANDA – FRANC925.0000
SAO TOME & PRINCIPE – NEW DOBRAS22.1220
SAUDI ARABIA – RIYAL3.7500
SENEGAL – CFA FRANC582.0000
SERBIA – DINAR104.9200
SEYCHELLES – RUPEE13.6200
SIERRA LEONE – LEONE9,639.5898
SINGAPORE – DOLLAR1.3450
SLOVAK REPUBLIC – EURO0.8900
SLOVENIA – EURO0.8900
SOLOMON ISLANDS – DOLLAR8.0650
SOMALI – SHILLING575.0000
SOUTH AFRICA – RAND14.0560
SOUTH SUDANESE – POUND160.0000
SPAIN – EURO0.8900
SRI LANKA – RUPEE181.3000
ST LUCIA – E CARIBBEAN DOLLAR2.7000
SUDAN – SUDANESE POUND45.0000
SURINAME – GUILDER7.5200
SWAZILAND – LANGENI14.0560
SWEDEN – KRONA9.3010
SWITZERLAND – FRANC0.9660
SYRIA – POUND435.0000
TAIWAN – DOLLAR29.9420
TAJIKISTAN – SOMONI9.6500
TANZANIA – SHILLING2,293.0000
THAILAND – BAHT29.7700
TIMOR – LESTE DILI1.0000
TOGO – CFA FRANC582.0000
TONGA – PA’ANGA2.2090
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO – DOLLAR6.6970
TUNISIA – DINAR2.7720
TURKEY – LIRA5.9420
TURKMENISTAN – NEW MANAT3.4910
UGANDA – SHILLING3,660.0000
UKRAINE – HRYVNIA23.6900
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES – DIRHAM3.6730
UNITED KINGDOM – POUND STERLING0.7580
URUGUAY – PESO37.1300
UZBEKISTAN – SOM9,500.0000
VANUATU – VATU112.8000
VENEZUELA – BOLIVAR SOBERANO70,675.7400
VENEZUELA – FUERTE (OLD)248,832.0000
VIETNAM – DONG23,171.0000
WESTERN SAMOA – TALA2.5370
YEMEN – RIAL480.0000
ZAMBIA – NEW KWACHA14.0500
ZIMBABWE – RTGS16.2800

The Norman Case: Willful FBAR Penalty Upheld | FBAR Lawyers Miami

On November 8, 2019, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Court”) upheld the decision of the Court of Federal Claims to uphold the IRS assessment of a willful FBAR penalty in the amount of $803,530 with respect to Ms. Mindy Norman’s failure to file her 2007 FBAR. The Norman case deserves special attention because of its facts and circumstances and how the Court interpreted them to uphold the willful FBAR penalty.

The Norman Case: Facts of the Case

Ms. Norman is a school teacher. In 1999, she opened a bank account with UBS bank in Switzerland. It was a “numbered account” – i.e. income and asset statements referred to the account number only; Ms. Norman’s name and address did not appear anywhere on the account statements. Between 2001 and 2008, the highest balance of the account ranged between about $1.5 million and $2.5 million.

The Court described how Ms. Norman was actively engaged in managing and controlling her account. She had frequent contacts with her UBS banker in person and over the phone; she decided how to invest her funds and she signed a request with UBS to prohibit investment in US securities on her behalf (which could have triggered a disclosure of the existence of the account to the IRS). In 2002, she withdrew between $10,000 and $100,000 in cash from the account. In 2008 she closed the account when UBS informed her that it would cooperate with the IRS in identifying noncompliant US taxpayers who engaged in tax fraud; it should also be noted that the IRS presented into evidence UBS client contact records which stated that Ms. Norman exhibited “surprise and displeasure” when she was informed about the UBS decision.

Sometime in the year 2008, Ms. Norman signed her 2007 US tax return which, it appears, contained a Schedule B which stated (in Part III) that she had no foreign accounts. Moreover, she signed this return after her accountant sent her a questionnaire with a question concerning foreign accounts.

Also in 2008, Ms. Norman obtained a referral to an accountant. It appears that the accountant advised her to do a quiet disclosure, filing her amended returns and late FBARs. The quiet disclosure triggered the subsequent IRS audit.

The Court found that, during the audit interview, Ms. Norman made numerous false statements, including denying the knowledge of the existence of her foreign account prior to 2009. She also submitted a letter to the IRS re-affirming her lack of knowledge about the existence of this account.

Then, after retaining an attorney, Ms. Norman completely reversed herself in her second letter, stating that she did in fact know about the existence of the account. She further explained that her failure to timely file her FBARs occurred due to her belief that none of the funds in the account were hers and she was not a de-facto owner of the account.

The Norman Case: Penalty Imposition and the Appeals

It appears that the false statements and radical shifts in claims about what she knew about her account completely damaged her credibility with the IRS agent in charge of the audit. Hence, the IRS found that Ms. Norman willfully failed to file her FBAR and assessed a penalty of $803,530.

Ms. Norman paid the penalty in full and filed a complaint with the Court of Federal Claims requesting a refund. The Court of Federal Claims sustained the penalty; hence, Ms. Norman appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the penalty imposition.

The Norman Case: Issues on the Appeal

Ms. Norman raised three issues on the appeal: (1) the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding that she willfully violated the FBAR requirement; (2) a 1987 Treasury regulation limits the FBAR willful penalty to $100,000; and (3) a penalty so high violates the 8th Amendment. The Court did not consider the 8th Amendment argument for procedural reasons.

The Norman Case: Recklessness as part of Willfulness

At the heart of the dispute over the imposition of the willful penalty was whether the IRS can use recklessness in its determination of willfulness. It is important to point out here that the IRS imposed the willful penalty even though it could not prove that Ms. Norman actually knew about the existence of FBAR. Rather, it relied on recklessness in its imposition of the willful FBAR penalty.

In the appeal, Ms. Norman argued that one can only violate the FBAR requirement if one has the actual knowledge of the existence of the form. She adopted a strict interpretation of willfulness as the one found in the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”): “willfulness is shown by the person’s knowledge of the reporting requirements and the person’s conscious choice not to comply with the requirements.”

The Court, however, did not agree with this interpretation. First of all, it pointed to the well-established law that the IRM is not binding in courts. The courts in several circuits have determined that recklessness should be considered as willfulness. Second, the IRM itself stated that actual knowledge of FBAR is not required for the imposition of a willful penalty. Rather, the IRM allowed for the possibility of the imposition of a willful penalty where the failure to learn about FBAR is combined with other factors, such as attempts to conceal the existence of the account and the amounts involved.

Then, the Court explained its reasoning for believing that Ms. Norman’s behavior was reckless: she opened the foreign account, actively managed it, withdrew money from it and failed to declare it on her signed 2007 tax return. The fact that Ms. Norman made contradictory and false statements to the IRS during the audit further damaged her credibility with respect to her non-willfulness claims.

The Norman Case: 1987 Treasury Regulation No Longer Valid

Ms. Norman also argued that a 1987 regulation limited the willful FBAR penalty to $100,000. The Court disagreed, because this regulation was rendered invalid by the language found in the 2004 amendment to 31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(5)(C).

The Norman Case: Most Important Lessons for Audited US Taxpayers with Undisclosed Foreign Accounts

The Norman case contains many important lessons for US taxpayers who have undisclosed foreign accounts and who are audited by the IRS. Let’s concentrate on the three most important ones.

First and foremost, do not lie to the IRS; lying to the IRS is almost certain to backfire. In the Norman case, the taxpayer had good facts on her side at the beginning, but her actions during the audit made them almost irrelevant. Ms. Norman’s false statements damaged her credibility not only with the IRS, but also with the courts. It made her appear as a person undeserving of sympathy; someone who deserved to be punished by the IRS.

Second, Ms. Norman fell prey to an incorrect advice from her accountant and did a quiet disclosure. Given how dangerous her situation was as a result of an impending disclosure of her foreign account by UBS, doing a quiet disclosure in 2008 was a mistake. Instead, a full open voluntary disclosure should have been done either through the traditional IRS voluntary disclosure option or a noisy disclosure (unfortunately, the 2009 OVDP was not yet an option in 2008).

Finally, the Norman case highlights the importance of having the appropriate professional counsel. During her quiet disclosure and the subsequent IRS audit Ms. Norman did not hire the right professional to assist her until it was too late – the damage to the case became irreversible. Instead of retaining the right international tax attorney, she chose to rely on an accountant. In the context of an offshore voluntary disclosure and especially an IRS audit involving offshore assets, relying on an accountant is almost always a mistake – only an experienced international tax attorney is right choice.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Your US Tax Compliance and an IRS Audit Concerning Foreign Accounts and Foreign Income

If you have undisclosed foreign accounts and you wish to resolve your US tax noncompliance before the IRS finds you, you need to secure competent legal help. If you are already subject to an IRS audit, then you need to retain an international tax attorney as soon as you receive the initial audit letter. As stated above, Ms. Norman paid a very high price for a failure to do so timely; you should avoid making this mistake.

For this reason, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help as soon as possible. Our team of tax professionals headed by the highly experienced international tax attorney, Mr. Eugene Sherayzen, have helped hundreds of US taxpayers to resolve their prior US tax noncompliance issues and successfully conclude IRS international tax audits. We Can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

FBAR Financial Interest Definition | FBAR International Tax Lawyer & Attorney | FinCEN Form 114

In this article, I discuss one of the most important aspects of FBAR compliance – the FBAR financial interest definition.

FBAR Financial Interest: Legal Relevance and Context

FBAR is the acronym for the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Form 114. A US person who has a financial interest in foreign bank and financial accounts must file FBARs to report these accounts as long as their aggregate value exceeds the FBAR filing threshold. The key issue here is the definition of “financial interest” for FBAR purposes.

FBAR Financial Interest: Classification of Financial Interest

As I just stated, the FBAR financial interest definition describes a situation when a US person has a “financial interest” in a foreign account. It turns out that there are six possible situations when a US person may have a financial interest in a foreign account.

These situations can be divided into three categories: direct ownership, indirect ownership and constructive ownership. Let’s explore them in more detail.

FBAR Financial Interest: Direct Ownership

A US person has a financial interest in a foreign account if he is the owner of record or holder of legal title for this account. It does not matter whether he maintains the account for his own benefit or for the benefit of another person (US or foreign). As long as he is the owner of the account, he has a financial interest in the account and must file an FBAR to report it if the account’s highest value (together with all other foreign accounts of this person) exceeds $10,000.

FBAR Financial Interest: Indirect Ownership

There are four different scenarios which may result in having a reportable indirect FBAR financial interest in a foreign account:

1. Indirect Ownership Through a Corporation

A US person has a financial interest in a foreign account if the owner of record of holder of legal title is a corporation in which a US person owns directly or indirectly: (i) more than 50 percent of the total value of shares of stock; or (ii) more than 50 percent of the voting power of all shares of stock.

This means that, if a US corporation owns a foreign company which has a foreign account, then this US corporation has a financial interest in this account through its direct ownership of the foreign company. In other words, the US corporation will need to file anFBAR for the foreign company’s foreign bank and financial accounts.

One of the most frequent sources of FBAR noncompliance, however, is with respect to indirect ownership of the foreign account by the owners of a US corporation. For example, if a Nevada corporation owns 100% of a French corporation and a US owner owns 51% of the US corporation, then, the US owner must disclose on his FBAR his financial interest in the French corporation’s foreign accounts. This financial interest is acquired through indirect 51% ownership of the French corporation.

2. Indirect Ownership Through a Partnership

This scenario is very similar to that of corporations. A US person has a financial interest in a foreign account if the owner of record or holder of legal title is a partnership in which the US person owns directly or indirectly: (i) an interest in more than 50 percent of the partnership’s profits (distributive share of partnership income taking into account any special allocation agreement); or (ii) an interest in more than 50 percent of the partnership capital.

3. Indirect Ownership Through a Trust

This is a more complex category which includes two scenarios. First, a US person has a financial interest in a foreign account if the owner of record or holder of legal title is a trust and this US person is the trust grantor who has an ownership interest in the trust under the 26 U.S.C. §§ 671-679.

Second, a US person has a financial interest in a foreign account if the owner of record or holder of legal title is a trust in which the US person has a greater than fifty percent (50%) beneficial interest in the assets or income of the trust for the calendar year. This second scenario is a true FBAR trap for US taxpayers, because while grantors may anticipate their FBAR requirements, beneficiaries are usually completely oblivious to this requirement.

This category of FBAR financial interest definition is even more complicated by the fact that it requires a very nuanced understanding of US property law and FBAR regulations. For example, how many taxpayers can answer this question: if a US person has a remainder interest in a trust that has a foreign financial account, should he disclose this account on his FBAR?

4. Indirect Ownership Through Any Other Entity

This a “catch-all” category of indirect FBAR financial interest definition. If a situation does not fall within any of the aforementioned categories, a US person still has a financial interest in a foreign account if the owner of record or holder of legal title is any other entity in which the US person owns directly or indirectly more than 50% of the voting power, more than 50% of the total value of equity interest or assets, or more than 50% of interest in profits.

FBAR Financial Interest: Constructive Ownership

This is a very dangerous category of FBAR financial interest definition, because, in the event of an unfavorable determination by the IRS, it may have highly unfavorable consequences, including the imposition of FBAR willful penalties and even FBAR criminal penalties. A US person has a financial interest in a foreign account if the owner of record or holder of legal title is a person who acts on behalf of the US person with respect to the account. Various classes of persons fall under this description: agents, nominees and even attorneys.

This category of FBAR financial interest definition targets situations where a US person is trying to hold his money under the name of a third party. It is not easy, however, to determine whether the foreign person is holding this money on behalf of the US person.

The key consideration here is the degree of control that the US person exercises over the account. If the agent can only access the account in accordance with the instructions from the US person, if there is an understanding that the agent holds the account on behalf of the US person and if the agent does not independently distribute funds for his own needs, then the IRS is likely to find that the US person has a financial interest in the account for FBAR purposes.

On the other hand, if the account owner uses the funds for his own purposes and makes gifts to third parties, the situation becomes increasingly unclear. In this case, one has to retain an international tax attorney to analyze all facts and circumstances, including the origin of funds.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for FBAR Help, Including the Determination of FBAR Financial Interest in a Foreign Account

FBAR is a very dangerous form. FBAR noncompliance penalties are truly draconian. They range from FBAR criminal penalties (of up to ten years in prison) to civil FBAR willful penalties (with 50% of the account or $100,000 (adjusted for inflation) whichever is higher) and even civil FBAR non-willful penalties of up to $10,000 (adjusted for inflation) per account per year. FBAR’s unusual Statute of Limitation of six years also means that the IRS has an unusually long period of time to assess these penalties.

This is why, if you have foreign bank and financial accounts, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We are a highly-experienced international tax law firm that specialized in US international tax compliance and offshore voluntary disclosures (including for prior FBAR noncompliance). We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world, and We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Disregarded Entity FBAR Obligations | FBAR Tax Lawyer & Attorney Houston

As an FBAR tax lawyer & attorney, I can see that one of the most common tax compliance mistakes made by US taxpayers is ignoring their disregarded entity FBAR obligations. These taxpayers believe that, since disregarded entities are ignored for tax purposes, these entities do not need to file any FBARs. In this article, I will explain why this view is completely false and how US taxpayers should comply with their disregarded entity FBAR obligations.

Disregarded Entity FBAR Obligations: What Are Disregarded Business Entities?

Under US tax law, certain juridical persons are disregarded for tax purposes. In other words, an entity is not recognized for tax purposes as something separate from its owner; the owner and the entity are merged into one tax person for tax purposes.

A disregarded entity may have only one owner. If there is more than one owner, then the entity is treated as a partnership for US tax purposes (unless it elects to be treated as a corporation).

A disregarded entity does not file its own tax return. Rather its owner reports all of the entity’s income and expense items on the owner’s tax return.

It is important, however, that one does not confuse the tax and legal treatment of a disregarded entity. Despite being ignored for tax purposes, a disregarded entity continues to exist legally. In other words, for all legal purposes, it is a separate juridical person with its own legal rights and obligations.

The most typical example of a disregarded entity is a single-member limited liability company (“SMLLC”). Another prominent example is a grantor trust.

Disregarded Entity FBAR Obligations: Required FBAR Compliance

A US disregarded entity must file an FBAR if it has a financial interest in or signatory authority or any other authority over foreign bank and financial accounts the highest aggregate value of which exceeds $10,000 at any point during the relevant calendar year.

FBAR is not filed with a US tax return. Hence, disregarded entities must file FBARs even though they do not file US tax returns. Taxpayers need to make sure to obtain an EIN number for their disregarded entities.

It is important to emphasize that all FBARs of disregarded entities are filed under the names of these entities, not their owners or managers. In other words, if a grantor trust files an FBAR, the trustee will sign FBAR which is officially filed in the name of the grantor trust.

Also note that I stated that a “US disregarded entity” must file an FBAR. A foreign disregarded entity does not need to file an FBAR (though, its US owner will have to do it under the FBAR rules).

Disregarded Entity FBAR Obligations: FBAR is not a Tax Requirement

Why is it that a disregarded entity has to file FBARs if it is disregarded for tax purposes? The answer to this question requires us to look into the legislative origin of FBAR.

The key to understanding why a disregarded entity has to file FBARs is the fact that FBAR is not part of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). In other words, FBAR is not a tax form. FBAR is a creation of the Bank Secrecy Act and belongs to Title 31 (IRC is Title 26) of the United States Code.

As I stated above, a disregarded entity is ignored only for tax purposes, but it continues to exist for legal purposes. Hence, for FBAR purposes, the entity is not disregarded but continues to exist as a separate juridical person with its own legal compliance duties, including FBAR obligations.

Disregarded Entity FBAR Obligations: Why IRS Enforces FBAR Compliance

There is one more issue we need to clarify: if FBAR is not part of the IRC, why is the IRS agency in charge of enforcing it? The answer to this question also lies in FBAR’s history (now, the readers can appreciate why I insist that an international tax attorney should know the legal history of different legal and tax requirements).

Prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the IRS was not in charge of enforcing FBAR compliance. Instead, for many years prior to 2001, FinCEN (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) was in charge of FBAR.

Why? The answer is simple: the original purpose of FBAR was not to fight tax noncompliance; it was not created as a tax form. Rather, FBAR was a tool to fight financial crimes, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. This fell straight within the competence of FinCEN.

In 2001, however, the US Congress turned over the function of enforcing FBAR compliance to the IRS (technically, FinCEN delegated the enforcement of FBAR to the IRS). The IRS almost immediately shifted the focus of FBAR from financial crimes to international tax enforcement.

Disregarded Entity FBAR Obligations: Frequent FBAR Violations

FBAR compliance is miserably low among disregarded entities. The main reason for so many FBAR violations is the fact that most taxpayers are completely unaware of the legal analysis of FBAR which I have set forth above. As I stated above, they incorrectly believe that FBAR is a tax form and, since disregarded entities are ignored for tax purposes, these entities do not or did not file FBARs. Unfortunately, even these non-willful situations may lead to the imposition of substantial FBAR penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help with Your Disregarded Entity FBAR Obligations

In order to avoid these FBAR penalties and ensure proper tax compliance, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with your disregarded entity FBAR obligations. Sherayzen Law Office has filed FBARs for every type of a disregarded entity. If your entity has not filed FBARs in the past, but it was required to do so, Sherayzen Law Office can also help you determine the best offshore voluntary disclosure option for your entity and do all of the work necessary to bring you and your entities into full compliance with US tax laws. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

2018 FBAR Deadline in 2019 | FinCEN Form 114 International Tax Lawyer & Attorney

The 2018 FBAR deadline is one of the most important deadlines for US taxpayers in the calendar year 2019. Since FBAR is not filed with the federal income tax return, many taxpayers may miss this deadline. This is why Sherayzen Law Office is publishing this notice to US taxpayers.

2018 FBAR Deadline: Background Information

FBAR is an acronym for FinCEN Form 114, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. US Persons must file FBAR if they have a financial interest in or signatory or any other authority over foreign financial accounts if the highest aggregate value of these accounts is in excess of $10,000. FBARs are filed separately from federal tax returns.

2018 FBAR Deadline: Pre-2016 FBAR Deadline

For the years preceding 2016, the US government chose a very strange deadline for FBARs – June 30 of each year. For example, 2012 FBAR was due on June 30, 2013. No filing extensions were allowed.

There was another surprising rule for FBAR deadlines. Prior to the mandatory e-filing of FBARs, taxpayers had to mail their FBARs to the specialized center in Detroit, Michigan. Unlike the rest of the tax forms, FBARs did not follow the “mailbox rule”. In other words, the filing of an FBAR was recognized by the IRS not upon the mailing of this form, but upon its receipt. For example, if FBAR was mailed on June 30, but received on July 1, it was not timely filed.

Federal tax returns, on the other hand, do follow the mailbox rule. This means that the IRS will consider the mailing date, not the date of receipt, as the date of the filing of a tax return. I should point out that, in practice, the IRS often confuses the rule and incorrectly issues failure-to-file penalties based on the date of receipt. This is why it is important to have a proof of mailing for your federal tax return.

The last FBAR that followed the June 30 deadline was 2015 FBAR; its due date was June 30, 2016. Nevertheless, due to the six-year FBAR statute of limitations, it is important to remember this history for the purpose of offshore voluntary disclosures and IRS FBAR audits. It will continue to be relevant as late as June 30, 2022.

2018 FBAR Deadline: Changes to FBAR Deadline Starting 2016 FBAR

Of course, the strange FBAR filing rules greatly confused US taxpayers. First of all, it was difficult to learn about the existence of the form. Second, taxpayers found it very difficult to timely comply with its requirements due to its very strange filing rules.

The US Congress took action in 2015 to alleviate this problem. As it usually happens, it did so when it passed a law that, on its surface, had nothing to do with FBARs. The Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (the “Act”) changed the FBAR deadline starting with 2016 FBAR. Section 2006(b)(11) of the Act requires the FBARs to be filed by the due date of that year’s tax return (i.e. usually April 15), not June 30.

Furthermore, during the transition period (which continues to this date), the IRS granted to US taxpayers an automatic extension of the FBAR filing deadline to October 15. Taxpayers do not need to make any specific requests in order for an extension to be granted.

Thus, starting with the 2016 FBAR, the Act adjusted the FBAR due date to coincide with the federal income tax filing deadlines. This is the case even if federal law requires a different filing date. For example, in situations where the tax return due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the IRS must delay the due date until the next business day; the FBAR deadline will follow suit and also shift to the next business day.

2018 FBAR Deadline

Based on the current law, the 2018 FBAR deadline will be April 15, 2019. In other words, your 2018 FBAR has to be e-filed by and including that date. Automatic extension to October 15, 2019, is available.